Council for Science and Technology
40. The Council for Science and Technology (CST)
was established in November 1993 following the 1993 White Paper
Realising our Potential as "the Government's premier
advisory body on science, engineering and technology policy".[49]
It was reviewed in 1998 and reconstituted. Our predecessor Committee
considered the effectiveness of CST Mark II in 2001 in its Report
Are We Realising Our Potential?. It concluded:
"In its first few years, the CST does not appear
to have operated very effectively. In March 1998, the Council
was re-established with clearer, more comprehensive terms of reference,
increased independent membership and commitments to publish an
annual report, its advice and information about its work. Despite
these changes, we still received evidence that ACOST [Advisory
Council on Science and Technology] was more influential and active."[50]
41. The Government responded by stating that it gave
"due recognition and prominence to the Council's distinctive
and influential contribution to science, technology and innovation
policies".[51] This
warm endorsement of the CST's effectiveness is in sharp contrast
to the recommendation, accepted by the Government, of stage one
of the CST's quinquennial review:
"CST's work since it was re-established has
made some contribution to policy formulation. But its overall
impact, like that of its predecessor bodies, has proved disappointing.
… this report recommends that CST should remain in being
- but only if the Government and CST's members are prepared to
take steps to make it more effective."
Stage 2 of the QQR recommended the reform of the
CST and the Government responded in July 2003 with revised terms
of reference for the CST:
To advise the Prime Minister on the strategic policies
and framework for:
— sustaining
and developing science, engineering and technology (SET) in the
UK, and promoting international co-operation in SET;
— fostering
the practice and perception of science, engineering and technology
as an integral part of the culture of the UK;
— promoting excellence in SET education;
— making more effective use of research
and scientific advice in the development and delivery of policy
and public services across Government; and
— promoting SET-based innovation in business
and the public services to promote the sustainable development
of the UK economy, the health and quality of life of UK citizens,
and global sustainable development.
42. It will be chaired by the Chief Scientific Adviser
and by one of the independent members chosen from among the 16
members. The independent chair will take charge of meetings at
which CST's members gather to develop advice to Government. The
CSA will chair meetings at which CST reports its advice to Ministers.[52]
The new body will be re-launched early in 2004.
43. We wish CST mark III well. The emergence of an
influential and distinguished scientific advisory body for Government
would be welcome but it is hard to be enthusiastic about the latest
incarnation of the CST. The views of CST Members during Stage
1 of the QQR were telling: they were unclear whether the advice
they were providing was valued.[53]
Until there is a clear demand for its advice, the constitution
of the CST is of little consequence. Sir David King has been active
in setting up ad-hoc committees to deal with pressing issues,
such as foot and mouth disease, energy and domestic terrorism.
While Stage 1 of the CST's quinquennial review declares that the
CST is there to give insight into the bigger picture and not intended
to provide a specialist view, we believe that high level scientific
advice for Government would be better achieved using ad hoc committees
than through a standing committee of non-specialists.[54]
Ad-hoc committees may lack the horizon-scanning capability of
a standing committee but this function could be handled differently,
perhaps by contracting a body such as the Royal Society or another
learned society. The new Council for Science and Technology
deserves a chance to succeed but the Government must not waste
another five years. The Government should put it on a year's probation
and have the courage to abolish it if it is not working.
45 
